If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

It is just incredible how repetitive these videos are. Here's a new one:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxDUcgzvHEI

This video features actornaut "Kate Rubins", with her very visible long hair as usually spread up to demonstrate "microgravity" (really, what's wrong with chignons? bonnets? clips? keeping your hair short for the occasion? And who cleans the hair you lose from the instruments?)

Once again, in answer to the pathetic questions of the clueless interviewer, here we watch the actornaut stating that they are conducting a lot of "experiments" on "fluid behaviour" (~ 4:00). Seriously, "experiments on fluid behavior"? These are words said a zillion times in basically all similar interviews... I guess the actornauts are instructed to say this, lest they should incur in some scientific blunder?

In fact atornauts never enter into the details of any experiment, they never even get as close as to the naming the experiments. However, all of these alleged experiments are listed on the NASA website, probably imagined by some creative losers who actually studied a bit. But why would the crew on board, who is supposed to have actually conducted these experiments, be so evasive?And by the way, are these experiments well presented, well described on the NASA website? You be the judge, I just clicked on a couple of pages where the word fluid was mentioned, and I didn't have the impression of seriousness you would expect:

Science Results for EveryoneWhole lotta shaking going on. This investigation created bridges between liquids to observe how fluids move in microgravity, where the absence of gravity allows formation of larger, longer bridges...http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... s/881.html

Here's experiment 911, which, I admit, I picked only for the number (it's an Italian experiment, on radiation exposure):"Radiation exposure represents one of the greatest risks to humans traveling on exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit" Wait: did they ask Leon Musk, who just stated that "radiation in space is not a big deal"?

more gems from the boring video:

"tell us how you felt during launch""blah blah blah, it's very incredible that we launch human beings into space" ~2:40

Notice how she keeps looking down and to the right, as if she was fishing from the recesses of her brain the images to lend credibility to her hollow, lying words.As a reminder:

Looking to Their Right = Auditory Thought (Remembering a song) Looking to Their Left = Visual Thought (Remembering the color of a dress)Looking Down to Their Right = Someone creating a feeling or sensory memory (Thinking what it would be like to swim in jello) Looking Down to Their Left = Someone talking to themselves

She analyzed the mechanism of HIV integration, including several studies of HIV-1 Integrase inhibitors and genome-wide analyses of HIV integration patterns into host genomic DNA. She obtained her Ph.D. from Stanford University and, with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rubins and colleagues developed the first model of smallpox infection. She also developed a complete map of the poxvirus transcriptome and studied virus-host interactions using both in-vitro and animal model systems.

Rubins accepted a Fellow/Principal Investigator position at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (MIT/Cambridge, Massachusetts) and headed a lab of researchers studying viral diseases that primarily affect Central and West Africa. Work in the Rubins Lab focused on poxviruses and host-pathogen interaction as well as viral mechanisms for regulating host cell mRNA transcription, translation and decay. In addition, she conducted research on transcriptome and genome sequencing of filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg) and Arenaviruses (Lassa Fever) and collaborative projects with the U.S. Army to develop therapies for Ebola and Lassa viruses.

...and now she studies "fluid behaviour" "in space".

But actually this makes the interview even more incongruous, since just a few days earlier this article came out on NASA: One Billion Base Pairs Sequenced on the Space Station, alleging that actornaut Rubins worked/is working at this experiment on DNA, which has nothing to do with fluid behaviour.

Meanwhile, her clueless interviewer is "Sex and relationships" editor (i.e. yet another Censor hard at work for the urgent enactment of the destruction of the family) at Cosmopolitan, see here.

As I was reading more bullshit about Mars, I bumped into another astonishingly poor and repetitive interview with an actornaut, this time none other than Italian actor/agent/soldier "Samantha Cretinetti"...Unfortunately CNN does not allow embedding of this media turd, however you can watch at the above linked page.The intreview is entirely scripted (she has learnt her answers beforehand), goes by very fast (lest more details are demanded from the public) and touches the usual: 1) how to become an astronaut 2) weightlessness 3) water 4) working out 5) peaks out of the window. Yawn. To the interviewer is left to mention that she participated in 6) experiments which, blah blah blah, humanity. Cretinetti is so full of shit, divided between her immense ego and the shame of lying, it is almost painful to watch.

OK, I'll post here some calculations I've made in order to ascertain what's that bright dot that can be seen some days at dusk.

http://www.heavens-above.com/ gives for a 'good' pass over my location a relative magnitude of -2.8 at 600 Km. More or less, I can agree with that.

Using this tool http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astro ... _magnitude , and entering a magnitude of -2.8, and a distance of 600 Km. gives us a luminosity of 1.63 MW. It's more complicated than that, but we could simplify and say that the ISS should be as bright as a 1.64 MW high-efficiency light bulb. That's quite a lot...

But the ISS (or whatever it is) doesn't emit light by itself, it has to reflect the Sun. Now, the Sun's energy at Earth's distance is about 1400 W/m2. So the previous luminosity for a reflecting space body would be equivalent to a sphere with a diameter of 21 meters, radiating 1400 W/m2 over all its surface. As we count only with reflection, it should be a perfectly white body with 100% reflectivity. Anyway, this is a simplification as being a spherical opaque body only half of it would be illuminated at any given moment, and the apparent brightness for an Earth based observer would depend on how much of the lighted surface can be seen; same as with the Moon or any other celestial body. So we'd probably need a much larger sphere to account for such brightness.

Now, it's difficult to translate the spherical model to an irregularly shaped object as the ISS, but even when its absolute measures are larger than our sphere, most of the structure wouldn't count as it's composed by trusses, solar panels (that are like mirrors pointing to the Sun, so they don't direct light to any other point). So its reflectivity should be much less.

I've been also looking for vids with Spanish 'astronaut' Pedro Duque offering us a guided tour in the ISS. It's strange that this supposed cum laude Aeronautical Engineer speaks like a teenager (not to say like a school boy), and doesn't seem to know a lot about technology, but there are some other remarkable things in these videos:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_My6HxiDAWY

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yJq9f6lGEg

I'll translate some of his words. It sounds really funny for a native Spanish speaker.

0:48: "This is the end of the space station. This way you go out to space, or to the space shuttle if we got it here. This is the door that opens, but now it's closed, logically"

6:40: (another airlock) "This door also goes to space. Now it's closed, logically, but if I would open it, there would be the hole for the space, and we would go outside". (a word or two about decompression would be expected coming from an aeronautical engineer, I guess).

8:03: "Down there, there is a Soyuz where I'll be coming back home". Now this is what most shocked me. If you're supposed to be in microgravity, you wouldn't refer to a place as "down there" or say "we'll go downwards", as he's saying a lot of times.

Please be prepared to explain in text what your videos show, if you don't mind.

I don't know exactly what you are showing in the absurd "space walk" imagery, but it would appear the "Earth" being shown is a special effect depicted as photography, due to the way the shape distorts what appears to be some imagery not created on the space walk itself but rendered as some kind of fish-eye effect.

As long as it can be made clear to people that this isn't a poorly faked camera movement accompanied by the poorly faked movement of the nonsensical "spacecraft", or some other official excuse ... that's great!

If it's just a video with no comment, I think it does help to give people some indication, arrows, points or something else for explanation.

I know that the absurdity can be obvious to us but remember we are trying to wake up some very hypnotized/mindfucked people who need things explained. I think 'September Clues' is a simple example of what can be done to official videos to really drive home what is wrong with any given fakery.

In this case, I think we would want to make a case that the twisting motion of the "camera" as it "orbits" is not consistent with a simulated example of such.

By the time she lands back on Earth in September, Dr Whitson will have spent 666 days in orbit.

A beastly number that woman is

I don’t know if this video have been brought up earlier in the thread. It gave me an aha moment on how you rather easily can simulate zero-g in front of a camera. And it would explain why most of the ISS astronots look a bit stiff and uncomfortable during interviews. Harder to look relaxed if you’re hanging on the side. But that’s the art and fine admirable profession of lying through your teeth that this woman has perfected.

Thank you pov603 but from studying some videos earlier in this thread I understand there are much more sophisticated ways today to suspend people in wires and simulate weightlessness. So it's safe to say it's fake, but to find out exactly how they do it I'd have to become a freemason I guess.